By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Can someone please tell me where USA went? I can’t find it.

BTFeather55 on 17 March 2009
SciFiBoy said:
BTFeather55 said:
SciFiBoy said:
BTFeather55 said:
SciFiBoy said:
BTFeather55 said:
At the end of the day, as Spock says in that scene from Star Trek, "The Good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one." The Bush sponsored bailouts were originally designed to help out the few to the expense of the many. We know what the founding fathers would have made of these bailouts from their action at the Boston Tea Party and their declaration that "There shall be no taxation without representation." Basically, assigning such a staggering debt to American tax payers that we will be paying on for centuries as Bush and his henchmen did, without giving the American people the right to vote on it at the polls in November was a very grievous example of modern "taxation without representation" done by the wealthy and power elite in this nation.

 

Spock says "Needs" not "Good"

 

      Needs or goods same deal imo.  The point is neither the needs or the well-being of the poorer ie. majority of the people in this country were being met under Bush and they wouldn't have been under Mccain.  Whereas Bush's bailouts were engineered to be good for the few, Obama's plans are to help the majority of the people and that's the big difference right there. 

 

I Really don't think Spock was talking about the economy either

     No, he was talking about what is in general good for the majority of the people and Conservative Republican policies haven't been that lately and many would say they weren't really even that way under Reagan.

 

 

thats fine, im not talking about politics right now, i just want you to make sure you use Star Trek quotes properly

     I'm sorry if I messed up the quote.  I've never been very big into Star Trek.  I respect it, but I was always more into Star Wars, Dragon Lance, and then Final Fantasy.

 



Heavens to Murgatoids.

Around the Network
SciFiBoy on 17 March 2009
BTFeather55 said:
SciFiBoy said:
BTFeather55 said:
SciFiBoy said:
BTFeather55 said:
SciFiBoy said:
BTFeather55 said:
At the end of the day, as Spock says in that scene from Star Trek, "The Good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one." The Bush sponsored bailouts were originally designed to help out the few to the expense of the many. We know what the founding fathers would have made of these bailouts from their action at the Boston Tea Party and their declaration that "There shall be no taxation without representation." Basically, assigning such a staggering debt to American tax payers that we will be paying on for centuries as Bush and his henchmen did, without giving the American people the right to vote on it at the polls in November was a very grievous example of modern "taxation without representation" done by the wealthy and power elite in this nation.

 

Spock says "Needs" not "Good"

 

      Needs or goods same deal imo.  The point is neither the needs or the well-being of the poorer ie. majority of the people in this country were being met under Bush and they wouldn't have been under Mccain.  Whereas Bush's bailouts were engineered to be good for the few, Obama's plans are to help the majority of the people and that's the big difference right there. 

 

I Really don't think Spock was talking about the economy either

     No, he was talking about what is in general good for the majority of the people and Conservative Republican policies haven't been that lately and many would say they weren't really even that way under Reagan.

 

 

thats fine, im not talking about politics right now, i just want you to make sure you use Star Trek quotes properly

     I'm sorry if I messed up the quote.  I've never been very big into Star Trek.  I respect it, but I was always more into Star Wars and then Final Fantasy.

 

 

Star Wars is also good, never really got into FF, apart from XI online



halogamer1989 on 17 March 2009

Let the bastards fail and then let them pay it back. Change, change for a bankrupt exec No, it is not that I am against corps, I am for smart biz that have CEOs that don't run their corps into the ground.

Next stop... United Socialist States of America comrades!!!



BTFeather55 on 17 March 2009
halogamer1989 said:
Let the bastards fail and then let them pay it back. Change, change for a bankrupt exec No, it is not that I am against corps, I am for smart biz that have CEOs that don't run their corps into the ground.

Next stop... United Socialist States of America comrades!!!

 

 Oh well, it's Bush's fault.  He didn't live up to any of the promises he made in his speeches when running against Gore.  Then he turned into being all about a war yet in eight years he couldn't catch Bin Lade, then the price of gas started going up for some reason, then he wanted to give the rich tons of money before he left office. 



Heavens to Murgatoids.

Jackson50 on 17 March 2009
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Our founding fathers founded a country that relied entirely on the slave trade, before the Industrial Revolution, and their idea of compromise was to settle on black people being 3 fifths of a person so the votes of slave owners are worth more than people without slaves.

I like the idea behind their system of amendments they set up so we could fix all their horrible mistakes, but it took a really long time just to fix the 3 fifths of a person issue. All men are created equal except for slaves, and it took over 150 years for women to be able to vote. So if you're gonna pull any hypothetical founding father time travel scenarios, you need to realize that all our founding fathers were slave-owning womanizing drunks, they'd all get AIDS on day one, and try to throw the whole internet in jail or some crazy shit.

Well, that depends on which date you begin counting from. If you choose July 4, 1776, as the first date, then it would have taken 144 years (19th Amendment was ratified in 1920) for women to secure the right to vote. Also, some states had granted women's suffrage as early as the 1890s.  

 

 



Around the Network
The Ghost of RubangB on 18 March 2009
Jackson50 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Our founding fathers founded a country that relied entirely on the slave trade, before the Industrial Revolution, and their idea of compromise was to settle on black people being 3 fifths of a person so the votes of slave owners are worth more than people without slaves.

I like the idea behind their system of amendments they set up so we could fix all their horrible mistakes, but it took a really long time just to fix the 3 fifths of a person issue. All men are created equal except for slaves, and it took over 150 years for women to be able to vote. So if you're gonna pull any hypothetical founding father time travel scenarios, you need to realize that all our founding fathers were slave-owning womanizing drunks, they'd all get AIDS on day one, and try to throw the whole internet in jail or some crazy shit.

Well, that depends on which date you begin counting from. If you choose July 4, 1776, as the first date, then it would have taken 144 years (19th Amendment was ratified in 1920) for women to secure the right to vote. Also, some states had granted women's suffrage as early as the 1890s.  

Dammit.  I was too lazy to look up the date, and I thought it was later in the 20's for some reason.

You caught me.  If you could get VG$ for this, you'd be rich.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Jo21 on 18 March 2009
Kasz216 said:
Jo21 said:
Kasz216 said:
Jo21 said:
AIG lost 61 BILLION dollars in a quarter last year.

they are using BAILOUT Money to give High rank executives million dollar bonuses over around 170 million!!!

So the government should be more careful with their money next time... before handing it out without preconditions?

What the government is doing right now is basically blackmail.  I'd be surprised if it even would hold up legally.

A special tax specifically for one company with the directly stated goal of being for said company... i mean really?

What's next a tax specifically targeting fast food restruants named Burgerking etc.

 

a tons of useless executive should get million dollars bonuses for ruining their company? i don't think so.

If it's in their contracts?  Yes.  If their CEO's deem it so?  Yes.

There is nothing saying they shouldn't...  and trying to blackmail someone otherwise goes against anything a democratic society believes in.

A specialized tax targeting a group of people the government disagrees with is much more dangerous then a few incompetants getting big bonuses.

 

my point it's that they shouldn't get the bonuses AT ALL. nothing. so nothing had to be taxed, but the damn goverment bailout was stupid enough in first place.

 

 

 



Kasz216 on 18 March 2009
BTFeather55 said:
Kasz216 said:
BTFeather55 said:

TheRealMafoo asked:

"So back to the point of this thread. Should it be ok for Washington to target small groups of people, and take money they have earned just because government feels they don't "deserve" it?"

To answer your question, imo, if such money is an extraordinary amount that is going to go to aid a very small number of people much to the detriment of the majority of the people in our society, then I believe they should.

You also believe the Illuminati caused the economic crisis.

 

 

     Yeah, and you believe that being able to take what they donate in charity off of their taxes has nothing to do with the amount of money that the wealthy conservatives donate to charity.

 

No.  Actually I do think it matters.  Because if you can't take the money off you that means you have less of a net at the end of the year.

What i don't believe is that people give money becuse of the tax breaks.  Which is logical.  What do i gain by giving 1,000 dollars to say 350 dollars in taxes?

In general people doante what they are comfortable with... or some people... what they are sligtly uncomfortable with.

This is a reasonable position.  the Illuiminati... not so much.

 



appolose on 18 March 2009
The Ghost of RubangB said:
 

Yeah, people forget the part where Jesus himself said that rich people can not get into heaven.  And somehow early Americans created a "Protestant work ethic."  I never understood the relation between the two.  Rich people can't get into heaven, but if you get rich, you can use the concept of predestination to determine that you got rich because G-d loves you and wanted you to be rich before he lets you into heaven.  I love how capitalism can slowly twist all religions into "work hard, make money, hate communism, then die."

 

 

 He said it was hard, not impossible!  Sure, he said a camel would have an easier time squeezing through the eye of a needle, but he was being hyperbolic.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
amp316 on 18 March 2009

@ OP

It's north of Mexico and south of Canada. The Atantic Ocean is on it's east coast and the Pacific Ocean is on it's west coast.

Anyone that has taken a basic geography class would know this.

Anywho... glad to have been of some help.



Proud member of the SONIC SUPPORT SQUAD

Tag "Sorry man. Someone pissed in my Wheaties."

"There are like ten games a year that sell over a million units."  High Voltage CEO -  Eric Nofsinger